Lawyerly

GR No. 185716

2010-09-29

PEREZ, J.

The Court of Appeals and RTC correctly disregarded the circumstances of minority and relationship. This Court has consistently ruled that the twin circumstances of minority and relationship are in the nature of qualifying circumstances which must be alleged in the information and proved during trial beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise, the accused should only be held liable for the crime of simple rape.[37] These qualifying circumstances cannot be considered in fixing the penalty because minority, though alleged in the information was not proved. As regards relationship, the same was alleged and proved. Pursuant, to Section 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, in order to fall within subparagraph 1 of said provision, both circumstances of minority and relationship must be alleged in the information and proved during trial.

GR No. 186232

2010-09-27

PEOPLE v. ELPIDIO PAROHINOG ALEJANDRO

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

This Court recognizes the fact that AAA's testimony is not flawless. However, it is but ordinary for a witness, a rape victim no less, to have some inconsistencies in her statements since not only had the rapes occurred four or five years prior to her testimony but her testimony pertains to facts and details of shameful events that she would rather forget. Truly, if not for the motivation to seek justice for the molestations she had gone through, AAA would choose to bury those details in the deepest recesses of her memory. Moreover, inconsistencies may be attributed to the well-known fact that a courtroom atmosphere can affect the accuracy of the testimony and the manner in which a witness answers questions.[28] Likewise, inconsistencies in the testimony of a rape victim are inconsequential when they refer to minor details that have nothing to do with the essential fact of the commission of the crime -- carnal knowledge through force or intimidation.[29]

GR No. 172962

2010-07-08

PEOPLE v. ROMEO REPUBLO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

On the civil aspect of the case at bar, the trial court correctly found accused-appellant civilly liable in the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for each of the counts of consummated rape. These amounts are consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.[31] The trial court, however, omitted the civil liabilities of accused-appellant for the attempted rape. Prevailing jurisprudence sets the amount of the civil indemnity in attempted rape at P30,000.00 and moral damages at P25,000.00.[32] We hereby modify the disposition in the lower courts to include such amounts.

GR No. 186460

2009-12-04

PEOPLE v. GUALBERTO CINCO Y SOYOSA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

We also sustain the RTC and the Court of Appeals' award of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 and moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 to AAA, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[26] Nonetheless, the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 should be deleted, as no aggravating circumstance in the commission of rapes was proven.[27]

GR No. 167955

2009-09-30

PEOPLE v. ARMANDO PADILLA Y NICOLAS

PERALTA, J.

Anent appellant's failure to object to the testimony of AAA, regarding her age, the Court has held that the failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding the rape victim's age shall not be taken against him.[50] Even the appellant's implied admission of the victim's age, in the absence of any supporting independent evidence, may not be considered sufficient to prove her age. In People v. Biong,[51] the appellant testified as to the exact date when her daughter, the complainant, was born. However, the Court held that appellant's testimony falls short of the quantum of proof required to establish her age. As the qualifying circumstance of minority alters the nature of the crime of rape and increases the penalty thereof, it must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself.[52] In the present case, the Court agrees with appellant that the prosecution failed to discharge this burden.

GR No. 170342

2009-09-18

ALLAN DIZON Y AQUI v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As regards the damages awarded and their corresponding amounts, we agree with the Court of Appeals that AAA is entitled to the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages. Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, the victim in simple rape cases is entitled to an award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages.[38]

GR No. 185389

2009-07-07

PEOPLE v. BENJIE RESURRECCION

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The award of damages imposed, which the Court of Appeals fixed at P50,000.00[31] for the civil indemnity and another P50,000.00[32] for the moral damages, are in order.

GR No. 177572

2008-02-26

PEOPLE v. JUANITO DELA CRUZ Y RIVERA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The credibility of a rape victim is not impaired by some inconsistencies in her testimony.[31] Such inconsistencies are inconsequential when they refer to minor details that have nothing to do with the essential fact of the commission of the crime carnal knowledge through force and intimidation.[32]

GR No. 179189

2008-02-26

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO RESUMA y AGRAVANTE alias “GEROM

TINGA, J,

Settled is the rule that the determination of the competence and credibility of a witness rests primarily with the trial court,[30] because it has the unique position of observing the witness' deportment on the stand while testifying. Absent any substantial reason to justify the reversal of the assessments and conclusions of the trial court, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings.[31]

GR No. 175833

2008-01-29

PEOPLE v. EDWIN MALICSI

CARPIO, J.

However, we reduce the award of civil indemnity from P300,000 to P200,000 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[25] Civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000 for each count of simple rape is automatically granted once the fact of rape is established.[26]

GR No. 176632

2007-09-11

PEOPLE v. ROBERTO GINGOS y LATABI and NESTOR MARGOTE y CAICDOY

TINGA, J,

The duty to ascertain the competence and credibility of a witness rests primarily with the trial court,[13] because it has the unique position of observing the witness' deportment on the stand while testifying. Absent any compelling reason to justify the reversal of the evaluations and conclusions of the trial court, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings.[14]

GR No. 176633

2007-09-05

PEOPLE v. ARMANDO SAN ANTONIO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As regards the award of damages, the appellate court merely affirmed the award of the trial court without any modification. In simple rape, the Court awards P50,000.00[58] as civil indemnity and P50,000.00[59] as moral damages to the rape victim. As the award of moral damages is separate and distinct from the civil indemnity awarded to rape victims, the moral damages cannot take the place of the civil indemnity, which is actually in the nature of actual or compensatory damages, and is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[60] Hence, this Court also awards an additional amount of P50,000.00, as civil indemnity, to the complainant, apart from the P50,000.00 moral damages already awarded by the lower courts.

GR No. 174473

2007-08-17

PEOPLE v. ALVIN ABULON Y SALVANIA

TINGA, J.

The duty to ascertain the competence and credibility of a witness rests primarily with the trial court,[30] because it has the unique position of observing the witness's deportment on the stand while testifying. Absent any compelling reason to justify the reversal of the evaluations and conclusions of the trial court, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings.[31]

GR NO. 175880

2007-07-06

PEOPLE v. RICARDO COMANDA Y CAMOTE

TINGA, J.

On the matter of the prosecution proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt, we find it pertinent to reiterate the settled rule that the determination of the competence and credibility of a witness rests primarily with the trial court,[33] because it has the unique position of observing the witness' deportment on the stand while testifying. Absent any substantial reason to justify the reversal of the assessments and conclusions of the trial court, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings.[34]

GR No. 171731

2006-08-11

PEOPLE v. JOVEN OCAMPO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Regarding damages, this Court has consistently held that upon a finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory.[26] Diane is therefore entitled to P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. The trial court correctly awarded moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00. Even without allegation or proof of the trauma constituting the basis for the award, the same is necessarily included in a conviction of rape.[27] Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages as part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.[28] Considering that no aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the crime, the award by the trial court of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is without basis and should be deleted.

GR No. 152584

2004-07-06

PEOPLE v. GAUDENCIO ALBERIO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

We find, however, that the trial court erred in awarding P100,000.00 in moral damages to the victim Ana Liza Calunsag. In accordance with current jurisprudence, the amount of moral damages is hereby reduced to P50,000.00.[49] However, civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 is also awarded to the victim, pursuant to prevailing case law.[50]

GR No. 146111

2004-02-23

PEOPLE v. ROLENDO GAUDIA

PUNO, J.

We now review the damages awarded by the trial court. Time and again, we have ruled that when there is a finding that rape had been committed, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory.[53] If the death penalty has been imposed, the indemnity should be P75,000.00; otherwise the victim is entitled to P50,000.00 for each count of rape.[54] Thus, the appellant is ordered to pay the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity to Remelyn Loyola.[55]

GR No. 146111

2004-02-23

PEOPLE v. ROLENDO GAUDIA

PUNO, J.

We now review the damages awarded by the trial court. Time and again, we have ruled that when there is a finding that rape had been committed, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory.[53] If the death penalty has been imposed, the indemnity should be P75,000.00; otherwise the victim is entitled to P50,000.00 for each count of rape.[54] Thus, the appellant is ordered to pay the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity to Remelyn Loyola.[55]

GR Nos. 152592-93

2004-02-13

PEOPLE v. JOURIEL DIMACUHA Y CASAO

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

The trial court convicted appellant of statutory rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. However, while Sherie Ann's age was alleged in the informations and admitted by the accused at the pre-trial conference, as embodied in the Pre-Trial Order signed by him and his counsel,[16] the prosecution failed to present further proof that Sherie Ann was 7 years old at the time of the commission of the crimes. In the recent case of People v. Biong,[17] we held that in cases where the age of the victim is material to the determination of the nature of the crime and the imposable penalty, the prosecution must present independent proof of the victim's age. The minority of the victim must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself.

GR No. 151858

2003-11-27

PEOPLE v. JOSELITO PASCUA Y TEOPE

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In reviewing rape cases, the Court has always been guided by three well- entrenched principles: (a) that an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) that in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime which usually involves two persons, the complainant's testimony must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) that the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of evidence of the defense. Accordingly, the primordial consideration in a determination concerning the crime of rape is the credibility of the complainant's testimony.[4] In rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided it is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[5]

GR Nos. 147650-52

2003-10-16

PEOPLE v. RODOLFO S. PEPITO

PER CURIAM

As to damages, while the trial court awarded P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, it failed to grant civil indemnity which is mandatory upon a finding of rape. Civil indemnity is distinct from and should not be denominated as moral damages, which is based on different jural foundations. Indemnity ex delicto in the amount of P50,000.00 is automatically given to the offended party without need of further evidence other than the fact of rape.[41] In line with recent jurisprudence, an award of P75,000.00 is proper when rape is in its qualified form.[42] We affirm the award of moral damages which is also given without need of proof other than the commission of rape but should be increased to P75,000.00.[43] We likewise affirm the award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages because of the duly established circumstance of relationship[44] and to deter fathers with pervert tendencies and aberrant sexual behavior from preying upon their young daughters.[45]

GR No. 138364

2003-10-15

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO VILLANUEVA

BELLOSILLO, J.

In accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity in favor of the victim is in order.[27] In addition, the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages is justified, conformably with our pronouncement in People v. Pagsanhan.[28]

GR No. 149810

2003-08-28

PEOPLE v. CRISPIN T. RUALES

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to present any receipt to prove the claim for expenses incurred other than the testimony of the victim's mother. Likewise, the separate award of P200,000.00 representing moral damages must be reduced to P50,000.00 in accord with the prevailing jurisprudence.[30] Moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 are automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[31]

	GR No. 185716 2010-09-29	PEOPLE v. MIGUELITO MALANA Y LARDISABAY PEREZ, J.
The Court of Appeals and RTC correctly disregarded the circumstances of minority and relationship. This Court has consistently ruled that the twin circumstances of minority and relationship are in the nature of qualifying circumstances which must be alleged in the information and proved during trial beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise, the accused should only be held liable for the crime of simple rape.[37] These qualifying circumstances cannot be considered in fixing the penalty because minority, though alleged in the information was not proved. As regards relationship, the same was alleged and proved. Pursuant, to Section 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, in order to fall within subparagraph 1 of said provision, both circumstances of minority and relationship must be alleged in the information and proved during trial.
	GR No. 186232 2010-09-27	PEOPLE v. ELPIDIO PAROHINOG ALEJANDRO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
This Court recognizes the fact that AAA's testimony is not flawless. However, it is but ordinary for a witness, a rape victim no less, to have some inconsistencies in her statements since not only had the rapes occurred four or five years prior to her testimony but her testimony pertains to facts and details of shameful events that she would rather forget. Truly, if not for the motivation to seek justice for the molestations she had gone through, AAA would choose to bury those details in the deepest recesses of her memory. Moreover, inconsistencies may be attributed to the well-known fact that a courtroom atmosphere can affect the accuracy of the testimony and the manner in which a witness answers questions.[28] Likewise, inconsistencies in the testimony of a rape victim are inconsequential when they refer to minor details that have nothing to do with the essential fact of the commission of the crime -- carnal knowledge through force or intimidation.[29]
	GR No. 172962 2010-07-08	PEOPLE v. ROMEO REPUBLO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
On the civil aspect of the case at bar, the trial court correctly found accused-appellant civilly liable in the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for each of the counts of consummated rape. These amounts are consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.[31] The trial court, however, omitted the civil liabilities of accused-appellant for the attempted rape. Prevailing jurisprudence sets the amount of the civil indemnity in attempted rape at P30,000.00 and moral damages at P25,000.00.[32] We hereby modify the disposition in the lower courts to include such amounts.
	GR No. 186460 2009-12-04	PEOPLE v. GUALBERTO CINCO Y SOYOSA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We also sustain the RTC and the Court of Appeals' award of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 and moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 to AAA, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[26] Nonetheless, the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 should be deleted, as no aggravating circumstance in the commission of rapes was proven.[27]
	GR No. 167955 2009-09-30	PEOPLE v. ARMANDO PADILLA Y NICOLAS PERALTA, J.
Anent appellant's failure to object to the testimony of AAA, regarding her age, the Court has held that the failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding the rape victim's age shall not be taken against him.[50] Even the appellant's implied admission of the victim's age, in the absence of any supporting independent evidence, may not be considered sufficient to prove her age. In People v. Biong,[51] the appellant testified as to the exact date when her daughter, the complainant, was born. However, the Court held that appellant's testimony falls short of the quantum of proof required to establish her age. As the qualifying circumstance of minority alters the nature of the crime of rape and increases the penalty thereof, it must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself.[52] In the present case, the Court agrees with appellant that the prosecution failed to discharge this burden.
	GR No. 170342 2009-09-18	ALLAN DIZON Y AQUI v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As regards the damages awarded and their corresponding amounts, we agree with the Court of Appeals that AAA is entitled to the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages. Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, the victim in simple rape cases is entitled to an award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages.[38]
	GR No. 185389 2009-07-07	PEOPLE v. BENJIE RESURRECCION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The award of damages imposed, which the Court of Appeals fixed at P50,000.00[31] for the civil indemnity and another P50,000.00[32] for the moral damages, are in order.
	GR No. 177572 2008-02-26	PEOPLE v. JUANITO DELA CRUZ Y RIVERA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The credibility of a rape victim is not impaired by some inconsistencies in her testimony.[31] Such inconsistencies are inconsequential when they refer to minor details that have nothing to do with the essential fact of the commission of the crime carnal knowledge through force and intimidation.[32]
	GR No. 179189 2008-02-26	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO RESUMA y AGRAVANTE alias “GEROM TINGA, J,
Settled is the rule that the determination of the competence and credibility of a witness rests primarily with the trial court,[30] because it has the unique position of observing the witness' deportment on the stand while testifying. Absent any substantial reason to justify the reversal of the assessments and conclusions of the trial court, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings.[31]
	GR No. 175833 2008-01-29	PEOPLE v. EDWIN MALICSI CARPIO, J.
However, we reduce the award of civil indemnity from P300,000 to P200,000 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[25] Civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000 for each count of simple rape is automatically granted once the fact of rape is established.[26]
	GR No. 176632 2007-09-11	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO GINGOS y LATABI and NESTOR MARGOTE y CAICDOY TINGA, J,
The duty to ascertain the competence and credibility of a witness rests primarily with the trial court,[13] because it has the unique position of observing the witness' deportment on the stand while testifying. Absent any compelling reason to justify the reversal of the evaluations and conclusions of the trial court, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings.[14]
	GR No. 176633 2007-09-05	PEOPLE v. ARMANDO SAN ANTONIO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As regards the award of damages, the appellate court merely affirmed the award of the trial court without any modification. In simple rape, the Court awards P50,000.00[58] as civil indemnity and P50,000.00[59] as moral damages to the rape victim. As the award of moral damages is separate and distinct from the civil indemnity awarded to rape victims, the moral damages cannot take the place of the civil indemnity, which is actually in the nature of actual or compensatory damages, and is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[60] Hence, this Court also awards an additional amount of P50,000.00, as civil indemnity, to the complainant, apart from the P50,000.00 moral damages already awarded by the lower courts.
	GR No. 174473 2007-08-17	PEOPLE v. ALVIN ABULON Y SALVANIA TINGA, J.
The duty to ascertain the competence and credibility of a witness rests primarily with the trial court,[30] because it has the unique position of observing the witness's deportment on the stand while testifying. Absent any compelling reason to justify the reversal of the evaluations and conclusions of the trial court, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings.[31]
	GR NO. 175880 2007-07-06	PEOPLE v. RICARDO COMANDA Y CAMOTE TINGA, J.
On the matter of the prosecution proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt, we find it pertinent to reiterate the settled rule that the determination of the competence and credibility of a witness rests primarily with the trial court,[33] because it has the unique position of observing the witness' deportment on the stand while testifying. Absent any substantial reason to justify the reversal of the assessments and conclusions of the trial court, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings.[34]
	GR No. 171731 2006-08-11	PEOPLE v. JOVEN OCAMPO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Regarding damages, this Court has consistently held that upon a finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory.[26] Diane is therefore entitled to P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. The trial court correctly awarded moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00. Even without allegation or proof of the trauma constituting the basis for the award, the same is necessarily included in a conviction of rape.[27] Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages as part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.[28] Considering that no aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the crime, the award by the trial court of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is without basis and should be deleted.
	GR No. 152584 2004-07-06	PEOPLE v. GAUDENCIO ALBERIO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
We find, however, that the trial court erred in awarding P100,000.00 in moral damages to the victim Ana Liza Calunsag. In accordance with current jurisprudence, the amount of moral damages is hereby reduced to P50,000.00.[49] However, civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 is also awarded to the victim, pursuant to prevailing case law.[50]
	GR No. 146111 2004-02-23	PEOPLE v. ROLENDO GAUDIA PUNO, J.
We now review the damages awarded by the trial court. Time and again, we have ruled that when there is a finding that rape had been committed, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory.[53] If the death penalty has been imposed, the indemnity should be P75,000.00; otherwise the victim is entitled to P50,000.00 for each count of rape.[54] Thus, the appellant is ordered to pay the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity to Remelyn Loyola.[55]
	GR No. 146111 2004-02-23	PEOPLE v. ROLENDO GAUDIA PUNO, J.
We now review the damages awarded by the trial court. Time and again, we have ruled that when there is a finding that rape had been committed, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory.[53] If the death penalty has been imposed, the indemnity should be P75,000.00; otherwise the victim is entitled to P50,000.00 for each count of rape.[54] Thus, the appellant is ordered to pay the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity to Remelyn Loyola.[55]
	GR Nos. 152592-93 2004-02-13	PEOPLE v. JOURIEL DIMACUHA Y CASAO YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
The trial court convicted appellant of statutory rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. However, while Sherie Ann's age was alleged in the informations and admitted by the accused at the pre-trial conference, as embodied in the Pre-Trial Order signed by him and his counsel,[16] the prosecution failed to present further proof that Sherie Ann was 7 years old at the time of the commission of the crimes. In the recent case of People v. Biong,[17] we held that in cases where the age of the victim is material to the determination of the nature of the crime and the imposable penalty, the prosecution must present independent proof of the victim's age. The minority of the victim must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself.
	GR No. 151858 2003-11-27	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO PASCUA Y TEOPE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In reviewing rape cases, the Court has always been guided by three well- entrenched principles: (a) that an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) that in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime which usually involves two persons, the complainant's testimony must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) that the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of evidence of the defense. Accordingly, the primordial consideration in a determination concerning the crime of rape is the credibility of the complainant's testimony.[4] In rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided it is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[5]
	GR Nos. 147650-52 2003-10-16	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO S. PEPITO PER CURIAM
As to damages, while the trial court awarded P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, it failed to grant civil indemnity which is mandatory upon a finding of rape. Civil indemnity is distinct from and should not be denominated as moral damages, which is based on different jural foundations. Indemnity ex delicto in the amount of P50,000.00 is automatically given to the offended party without need of further evidence other than the fact of rape.[41] In line with recent jurisprudence, an award of P75,000.00 is proper when rape is in its qualified form.[42] We affirm the award of moral damages which is also given without need of proof other than the commission of rape but should be increased to P75,000.00.[43] We likewise affirm the award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages because of the duly established circumstance of relationship[44] and to deter fathers with pervert tendencies and aberrant sexual behavior from preying upon their young daughters.[45]
	GR No. 138364 2003-10-15	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO VILLANUEVA BELLOSILLO, J.
In accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity in favor of the victim is in order.[27] In addition, the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages is justified, conformably with our pronouncement in People v. Pagsanhan.[28]
	GR No. 149810 2003-08-28	PEOPLE v. CRISPIN T. RUALES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to present any receipt to prove the claim for expenses incurred other than the testimony of the victim's mother. Likewise, the separate award of P200,000.00 representing moral damages must be reduced to P50,000.00 in accord with the prevailing jurisprudence.[30] Moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 are automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[31]

PEOPLE v. GENARO BIONG